Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
*'''"Right-wing" should be okay''', since it's accurate about Geller's position on that political axis; but "extremist" is just ] labeling, not encyclopedic wording. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 17:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''"Right-wing" should be okay''', since it's accurate about Geller's position on that political axis; but "extremist" is just ] labeling, not encyclopedic wording. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 17:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Right-wing''', but not extreme. Several sources support her political position on the right to left wing axis, but "extreme" isn't really encyclopedic. Especially when the sources used to back up "extreme" are shaky and likely not neutral themselves (they may have something to gain by describing her as "extreme" right wing. Calling someone "extreme" makes for a good click-baity title). ] 🎷 <sup>'']'' | '']''</sup> 11:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Right-wing''', but not extreme. Several sources support her political position on the right to left wing axis, but "extreme" isn't really encyclopedic. Especially when the sources used to back up "extreme" are shaky and likely not neutral themselves (they may have something to gain by describing her as "extreme" right wing. Calling someone "extreme" makes for a good click-baity title). ] 🎷 <sup>'']'' | '']''</sup> 11:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
*''''Right wing''' only - Extremist is a bit much however various sources state "right-wing" so I don't see a reason ''not' to include this. –]<sup>]</sup> 12:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
A fact from Pamela Geller appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 August 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Islamophobia
Are there any reliable sources that actually deny that many of Pamella Geller's statements are Islamophobic? If not, we don't need to qualify that and can state it as fact. Because there is certainly a long list of sources that agree that many of her statements are Islamophobic.VRtalk14:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
You can't have it stated as a fact as there's no such thing as islamophobia. She's not phobic of them, she opposes their actions.213.205.241.129 (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
That statement makes no sense and is based on strawman logic. Unless a reliable source denies that her statements are Islamophobic, then they can be stated as fact. Shabeki (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Bizarre lede sentence
This sentence is bizarre:
Multiple media outlets have called her "far right", while others, such as the BBC, contrast her right-wing support for small government with her culturally liberal positions on abortion and same sex marriage.
One, there is nothing notable about her views on small government, abortion and same-sex marriage. Two, the text seems intended to dispute the widely used term "far-right" for her. Third, there's no need to attribute "far-right" to "media outlets". There's also no need to put far-right in quotes.
The BBC sources cited doesn't say far-right. It does say - In favour of abortion and same-sex marriages on the one hand, she is an enthusiastic supporter of right-wing small government - including cutting taxes and reducing budgets - on the other.. Would would be a mixture of right-wing and left-wing politics in the US (on marriage & reproduction vs. the rest). You can not place "far right" unqualified in the lead here - all you have is some polemic sources uses this label - and other more mainstream sources refraining from it.Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
It's bizarre because the bit in the middle about the SPLC keeps getting removed by people who don't like that the SPLC rightly called her a right wing extremist. It's reliably sourced and due though so it boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEITSimonm223 (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
We already have a sentence calling her "far right." There is little added by calling her "right-wing extremist" as there would by calling her alt-right, Neo-right, or Trumpeter-Right. "Far" and "extreme" are essentially the same thing. The paragraph says "right" three times when two would do. There's no consensus for a triplicate reiteration. No one is objecting to using the SPLC as it occurs several times in the lead. That's a red-herring claim. Jason from nyc (talk)
The SPLC position on her is definitely due in the lede. There's no clear consensus to keep it out, it's reliably sourced and your removal is plain and simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT so I suggest you self-revert and put it back. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
First of all you are dismissing my points as subjective ("I don't like it") without considering them. This is not conducive to a discussion seeking consensus. Try again. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The SPLC quote is not duplicated in the lede. Your point is without merit and your conduct borders on WP:TEND. There's no demonstration of consensus; it's you who keeps reverting this statement out, to the detriment of the flow of the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
We already have the SPLC calling her Islamophobic on the first paragraph in the lede - we don't need to reiterate the SPLC's position again. Icewhiz (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
"right-wing extremist"
We usually attribute the SPLC. Furthermore, it would seem that most secondary sources covering Geller do not use this particular label (while they do use several other labels) - e.g. this BBC profile does not use this language). When attaching contentious labels to BLPs we generally follow labelling used in a wide spectrum of sources. There are several secondary RSes covering Geller over the years - which other sources have used this label? Icewhiz (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I will further note that my reading of the cited SPLC source does not support "right-wing extremist" - I do not see that language there. The SPLC does use the extremist label as well as anti-Muslim - but not right-wing - please provide a quote supporting this.Icewhiz (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Youll note that? But you didnt note that it says Through her website, Geller has promulgated some of the most bizarre conspiracy theories found on the extreme right, including claims that President Obama is the love child of Malcolm X; that Obama was once involved with a "crack whore"; that his birth certificate is a forgery; that his late mother posed nude for pornographic photos; and that he was a Muslim in his youth who never renounced Islam. But sure, one of the more controversial ascending stars of the American extreme right. nableezy - 06:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Right now, you have an epithet at the beginning of the 1st para., supported by an SPLC cit., and then at the end you have another, different epithet, supported by the same SPLC cit. It's as if Misplaced Pages has decided the ultimate arbiter of human thought is the SPLC. Sad. Anyway, the SPLC clearly says Geller is Islamophobic, but nowhere does it say she's a "right-wing extremist." XavierItzm (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, SPLC doesnt support it, despite this already being quoted on this page
Through her website, Geller has promulgated some of the most bizarre conspiracy theories found on the extreme right, including claims that President Obama is the love child of Malcolm X; that Obama was once involved with a "crack whore"; that his birth certificate is a forgery; that his late mother posed nude for pornographic photos; and that he was a Muslim in his youth who never renounced Islam.
And also on this page there being another source that explicitly supports what you removed. I dont believe we put in quotes "right-wing extremist", making the argument that the SPLC does not say "right-wing extremist" a straw man. SPLC very clearly supports that, but regardless, when protection is lifted, Ill add the Independent source. nableezy - 16:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The page is in a category called extremist files it has the word extremist on the left margin. The text of the article uses the word extremist an additional 12 times. The source quite clearly supports the statement and the argument against looks a lot like a POV motivatged WP:TEND. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
It just doesn't support "right wing extremist". It supports extremist. It supports anti-Muslim. It support spreading conspiracy theories. Nowhere does the SPLC say Geller herself is right-wing - and they probably are careful since she actually isn't that easy to pigeonhole on the US spectrum (e.g. given her abortion stance).Icewhiz (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
At the end of the first paragraph we have " The Southern Poverty Law Center has described Geller as "Islamophobic". - which we could modify to "anti-Muslim extremist". Icewhiz (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
is also a contributor to the far-right Breitbart News. Right there in the source. Which calls her an extremist over and over again. As I said, your argument against the characterization of the source is the definition of WP:TEND. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really seeing justification for adding such a strong value judgement into the first sentence of the article, in WP's voice, in a BLP. I think we'd be better off getting SPLC back into the last paragraph by improving the wording of the content that was edit-warred out here. VQuakr (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I think what is important is explaining what she is known for, which is her views on Islam. She may be a right wing extremist and it may be possible to source that, but it does not really help readers. Her perceived extremism mostly relates to her views on Islam. So anti-Islamist or similar wording is more descriptive. TFD (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Except in that it demonstrates and example of how extreme right groups have used islamophobia as cover for normalizing their views. Geller is complicit in that process, and by refusing to characterize her as a right-wing extremist Misplaced Pages would be too. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Should the descriptor "right-wing extremist" be added to the first sentence of the article as proposed here and discussed in the talk page section above?
Previous RfCs relevant to the descriptor of "right wing" and/or the wording of the first sentences of the article include:
No. As a source for "right-wing extremist" has not been presented (we do have the SPLC calling her an anti-Muslim extremist, and some sources calling her right-wing, while others such as the BBC note she's been denounced as bigoted, but frame her political stance as - "In favour of abortion and same-sex marriages on the one hand, she is an enthusiastic supporter of right-wing small government - including cutting taxes and reducing budgets - on the other." - mixed). Geller is mainly known for her anti-Muslim advocacy (and not for her general political opinions) - and that's what we should be stressing. We do already quote the SPLC at the end of the first paragraph - it may be possible to tweak language there somewhat, or include a bit more of what the SPLC says. Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:NPA please. The Independent supports extreme right - not extremist. As for right/left - other sources disagree (or paint a more complex picture) - e.g. the BBC. What all sources agree on (and what this subject is notable for) - is anti-Muslim. Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Lol, sure, theres a personal attack in quoting you. Do you know what the word "extremist" means? It means somebody on the extreme. This pedantry has reached new levels. nableezy - 22:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Holding extreme positions and being an extremist are not the same. The former is required for the latter, however the latter implies active advocacy and promotion of the former often via resorting to extreme actions as well. You did more than merely quote me - you alleged dishonesty, which you should strike. I will note that in English the connotation of nouns, verbs, and adjectives often varies - as an example if a RS says "X terrorized her co-workers, instilling an atmosphere of terror in the office" it would not be sufficient sourcing for us to say that "X is a terrorist".Icewhiz (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The Independent does not say she holds extreme positions. It says member of the extreme right. Note whatever you wish, but Ill note your argument is both pedantic and in direct conflict to arguments you make regarding people whose politics you are less aligned with. nableezy - 01:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
People living in glasss houses shouldn't throw stones... Please do not imply I am aligned with Geller in any way. Regardless, the Independent (which is but one source) does not use "extremist".Icewhiz (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a level of basic competence required here. A member of the extreme is definitionally an extremist. Again, pedantry, pedantry not in use when the subject is somebody whose politics you are opposed to. nableezy - 18:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Competence is indeed required, and extends to WP:CIV and WP:NPA. I am sympathetic to some of your editorial arguments here, but several of the comments you've made both above and below, implying hidden agendas, dishonesty, and a lack of integrity or intelligence are completely unacceptable--on this project, you are expected to keep your comments confined to the substance of another editor's argument and well clear of speculation regarding your take on their motivations, personal qualities, and general capabilities. From answering random RfC bot notices this last week, I note you are sparring with Icewhiz across multiple spaces right now, and while I will not presume to make the assumption that is all one-sided--obviously both of you have strong (and in some respects, diametrically opposed) beliefs which intersect with the subject matter of the types of articles you both are inclined to edit--I must tell you that, based on the above alone, Icewhiz could easily take you to WP:ANI and you would have a difficult time accounting for your conduct such as to avoid a sanction. Lucky for you, my limited experience of Icewhiz suggests he is quite thick skinned--so much so that I've seen him argue against sanction at ANI for editors who were there for making inappropriate comments to him. But I wouldn't push your luck, because others aren't likely to be so forgiving. Again, argue the point, not the other editor's supposed qualities or intentions as you suspect them to be. An inability to internalize and conform to this principle is likely to get your editing privileges curtailed from certain areas or removed entirely. Snow05:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the SPLC supports it, but even if one were to make the pedantic argument that it does not say both "extreme" and "right wing" in the same sentence, the Independent very clearly explicitly supports right wing extremist. nableezy - 11:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
No it does not. You are drawing your own conclusions. The SPLC does not say anywhere (that has been presented here) that Geller is «right-wing extremist». Not to mention Misplaced Pages is exposed to liability by defaming people based on one particular, highly biased entity's assessment. Bring a prevalence of WP:RS, and we'll be OK. XavierItzm (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
No, We already have a sentence calling her "far right." There is little added by calling her "right-wing extremist" as there would by calling her alt-right, Neo-right, or Trumpeter-Right. "Far" and "extreme" are essentially the same thing. The lead would say "right" three times when two would do. There's no need for a triplicate reiteration. No one is objecting to using the SPLC as it occurs several times in the lead. I agree with the consensus that describing her as anti-Islamic (or equivalent) is more specific, exacting, and sums up the criticism in the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes Multiple reliable sources exist for Geller's right-wing extremism. No compelling reason has been presented to whitewash this person's political stance. Let's call this thing that quacks a duck and call it a day, shall we? Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
We have an essay about the quack test that explicitly reminds us that we don't use it on article content. Especially BLPs. Regardless of whether the label is verifiable without invoking waterfoul, this is a discussion about whether the label is appropriate in the first sentence of the article. VQuakr (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
No I think the earlier RFCs got it right: we shouldn't be making contentious characterizations of a living person in Misplaced Pages's voice, and the proposed characterization is overkill for the first sentence. Proposed syntheses that use similar but imprecise paraphrases from what is stated in RS's are also non-starters. VQuakr (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
No At best the Independent comes close, but doesn't even label or support "right-wing extremist" as proposed. For a label as inflammatory and POV as this, should have several RSs to support it. But hey, if this flies, then I guess so will "Palestinian extremists". The Kingfisher (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
No - against BLP and LABEL, seems not dominant position nor self-proclaimed, and not enough in article to merit LEAD position. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
No (summoned by bot) - The WP:RS doesn't support this label even the SPLC doesn't support it(and we used it attributed anyhow).Moreover we should be really careful in WP:BLP and say exactly what source saying --Shrike (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
No In a case like this, "extremist" is a value judgement, not enclyclopedic information. Also wp:BLP sets a high bar for such things, and this nowhere near meets it. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
No. Not easy enough from these sources to slap this particular label on a living person. Plus, one wonders if labels really do justice to this lady's particular particularities. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
No. It's not the most cut and dry call, but I don't think there's sufficient WP:WEIGHT in the sources to justify this exact phrase in the very first sentence of the lead. As to the rest of the article, there's more than enough opportunity to leverage coverage in the sourcing regarding her extremism (ideally mostly through direct attribution, although some more generalized statements are also probably acceptable in this instance). But as regards the lead sentence, the phrase "right wing extremist" is not only problematic as a WP:DUE matter, it's also problematic for its lack of precision/lack of clinical encyclopedic tone; it gives an emotive effect without really telling the reader much of substance. The question of the subject's extremism can and should be discussed in the article at large, but in proper context. I understand the impulse to call a spade for a spade, but with regard to encyclopedic writing, the demand for specificity and context with regard to particular labels is paramount. Snow04:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
"Right-wing" should be okay, since it's accurate about Geller's position on that political axis; but "extremist" is just WP:POV labeling, not encyclopedic wording. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 17:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Right-wing, but not extreme. Several sources support her political position on the right to left wing axis, but "extreme" isn't really encyclopedic. Especially when the sources used to back up "extreme" are shaky and likely not neutral themselves (they may have something to gain by describing her as "extreme" right wing. Calling someone "extreme" makes for a good click-baity title). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 11:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
'Right wing only - Extremist is a bit much however various sources state "right-wing" so I don't see a reason not' to include this. –Davey201012:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
